Friday, July 07, 2006

Still the question remains unanswered, as I imagine it will be until the end of time. The junior senator from Connecticut has been unable to articulate the reason, as has everybody else. Many, many Friedmans ago he had this to say:

As for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, which have not been found and which represented the rationale for the U.S.-led invasion, Lieberman said, "I am convinced and remain convinced" that Saddam had such weapons.

"We know he used them earlier. We know he had enormous quantities that were never accounted for. And that's why we've got to continue to look for them. He clearly hid them. We'll find them eventually."

Perhaps we will, eventually. Maybe Crazy Curt Weldon has them buried in his back yard.

Last night Lieberman said:

Let me repeat. I’m not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq.

If so, that's a change. Once upon a time he said:

"We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn't that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that's working in cooperation with the government there?" he asked.

Still, the entire question of what are we doing in Iraq and how long do we plan to be there has been effectively removed from the discourse. "Everybody knows" we plan to have permanent bases there, but the connection between that little fact and what we're doing there right now remains unaddressed by all of our beautiful minds.

Perhaps this is an opening. Next journalist to get a chance to chat with angry Joe should ask: Do you think it should be US policy to "establish some permanent bases in Iraq." If the lost art of the follow up question is allowed to intrude, perhaps the next question could be whether such bases are worth the continued cost in life and treasure, and if so why...